Posted on 11/19/2004 11:24:44 AM PST by NYer
Would the Church be better served if priests were married? Those who propose lifting the celibacy requirement claim that this change would bring about a great increase in vocations, would provide parishes with priests who better understand the problems of family life, would make the priests themselves happier, and would generally improve the Church all around. It sounds lovely. But the advocates of a married clergy need to give a little more thought to the real consequences of their blithe slogans. Perhaps they will listen to a wife who has been there.
Let us consider a typical, moderately large parish in an affluent American community, in which three priests live in a rectory that also houses the parish office. What changes would have to be made if the priests of this parish were married?
First, there would have to be many more priests at the parish. A celibate man can give all his time to the parish; a married man must give priority to his family. So these three priests must become five or six, leaving the "priest shortage" right where it was, even if the removal of the celibacy rule doubles the number of priests in America.
But that's only the beginning. The stipend of a priest is nowhere near enough to support a family; it's not even half enough. The salary of a married priest would have to be about three times the current stipend in order to keep a priest's family above the federal poverty line. (Would young men flock to the priesthood so they can support their families in near-poverty?) If the parish does not want the priest and his family to be the poorest family in the neighborhood, probably unable to afford even to send their children to the parish school, the salary would have to be higher still. Now figure in health insurance premiums for a wife and several children per priest.
And, of course, those six families can't all live in that rectory, and the parish offices can't be in the home of just one of them. So we now need six houses, and extra space somewhere else, to replace the one rectory. If the priests are expected to furnish their own housing, their salary will have to be increased even more.
Thus, supporting married priests will cost that three-priest parish more than six times what it now spends to support its priests. Does any parish consider itself that affluent? Is the average parishioner willing to multiply his offering by six? In all likelihood, the priests will have to work outside the priesthood to bring in income. Of course, their time for the parish and parishioners will decrease. So the parishioners, even if they could somehow support their six priests, would still find themselves short of priestly attention.
The financial burden is one thing, but there is also a very heavy emotional burden to be borne by priests - and their families. One hears the argument that "Protestant ministers can marry, and it works well for them," but the fact is that it doesn't work well. How many of the advocates of a married priesthood are truly aware of the struggles of a Protestant clergyman's family?
Every married pastor faces, throughout his career, the tension between the needs of the church and the needs of his family. Some find ways to resolve it to their satisfaction; most do not. Both church and family require more than half of a man's time and energy. Both can be demanding; and churches, which generally have no interest in a pastor's emotional health, are particularly demanding. The effects of this tension show up in families in various ways. Some wives - and many children - of pastors blame the church for depriving them of husband or father and leave the church, and even Christianity, altogether. One pastor said he expected his tombstone to read "Daddy's Gone to Another Meeting. " Another came home from a trip to find that his young son didn't even know he had been away - he was home so rarely anyway. Many a pastor's wife considers herself the next thing to a single parent.
On top of this, a pastor's wife and children are themselves without pastoral care. No man, however talented or dedicated, can be pastor and husband or father to the same people. The objectivity required of the pastoral role is missing. But the minister's family cannot seek spiritual direction and sustenance elsewhere; loyalty and the need to avoid the appearance of a split in the family require that they remain at his church. When the father's career and the family's spiritual life are one and the same, the spiritual life suffers badly.
A priest or minister is seldom off duty. Any family activity is likely to be interrupted, often for the most trivial of reasons. A vacation at home is impossible for a clergyman's family; if he's around, he's assumed to be available to his flock. The bum-out rate among Protestant pastors is very high. If relaxing the celibacy rule increases the number of priests, it will have to increase it enough to make up for the large number who will leave the priesthood when they, like so many of their Protestant colleagues, find the toll it takes on the families impossible to accept.
Or if a priest's wife leaves him, and the priest wants to continue functioning as a priest, what is the bishop supposed to do? Pretend everything is fine? What sort of message would that send? Would many parishioners be scandalized? Would others feel they now have permission to dump their spouses? And how well would any of them be pastored by the priest going through this private anguish? Or should the bishop quietly and quickly ship the priest (and his children?) off to a remote outpost in the diocese, hoping no one will be the wiser? This tactic has not won the hearts of Catholics where the problem has been pedophilia or some other violation of the vow of celibacy.
Or should the priest be laicized? Many would see this as the only solution that fully honors the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Could the institution of marriage, already stretched to the breaking point and denigrated to the point of virtual irrelevance, survive the spectacle of separating and divorcing priests who are allowed to continue functioning as priests? But others would feel that automatic laicization would punish the priest for transgressions that were, in most cases, not entirely his own or for a tragedy that was not entirely his fault. And is any of us ready to hear this announcement from the pulpit: The special third collection today will be for our Alimony Fund?
It is a fact that most Christians see their clergy as men set apart, not quite "real people," regardless of the steps the minister or priest takes to counteract that view. This impression, strong in Protestant churches, is even stronger among Catholics, because Catholic priests are set apart by their ordination in a way Protestant ministers are not. This sense of separateness extends to the pastor's family. A minister's wife who is pregnant may find that church members are uncomfortable with her as a living symbol of the pastor's active sexuality; a minister's children often find the expectation that they will be models of good behavior, piety, and academic achievement a crushing burden. Close friendships within the church can prove impossible to establish, depriving the pastor's family of the bonds with other Christians so important to spiritual growth. The difference between the Protestant and Catholic understandings of ordination means that a priest's family would suffer this isolation to an even greater degree than a Protestant minister's family does.
In discussing the need for more vocations, it is easy to offer facile solutions, to say that many more young men would become priests if priests could be married. There is little evidence to support this contention; but even if it were true, the cure would be worse than the disease
The unmarried man cares for the Lord's business; his aim is to please the Lord. But the married man cares for worldly things; his aim is to please his wife; and he has a divided mind. 1 Corinthians 7-32-33, NEB
Should being some sort of sexual athlete, i.e. being able to abstain, engender trust and confidence? To me it evokes suspicion about veracity, especially if the Priest is youthful.
No from the very beginning the Church advocated for chaste celibacy or continence for those who were married. It is a vry difficult discipline to enforce but woven throughout Church history is the proof that from the beginning they have desired that priests follow Christ,living as He did,unmarried and free to evangelize ,teach,preach and offer the sacraments at all times 924/7) in all places throughout the world.
I don't accept your premise. Certainly young men have a stronger sex drive. But it's quite a leap to presume every young man is a dog in heat. I wasn't. I didn't raise my sons to be. And it's unfair to assume young, unmarried men are living a sinful existence. A healthy, holy, single young man will find a physical outlet, like basketball or running.
Yes being married could be a disadvantage for pastors. Unfortunately, too many priests today either came in with an agenda, or were not given the correct gifting to be a priest.
As many Episcopal priests I've known that went through bad divorces, I think it's probably a discipline that should be kept.
I'm also not sure that St. Silverus was ever married.
With the exception of St. Peter, I believe that all of the popes you listed above were widowers whose wives had died before they entered the clergy.
If you are consecrating your life to GOD it would follow that you would take a serious vow of chastity and try your best to resist earthly temptations and urges. That seems pretty natural to me in that situation.
I believe this argument regarding priests marrying is being put forth by the cradle Catholics and other liberal Catholics who don't take the doctrine of the Church seriously in the first place.
The argument that there would be less priests having a crisis with child molestation is also behind this. But that argument falls flat because getting married does not prevent one from being a sexual predator.
The Church teaches we are not common animals. We are created in the image of God and our body is a temple.
1 Corinthians 7
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
I believe it is incorrect to assume that those whose desire opens them to the invitation of Satan are any less capable of being ordained. What we are being taught is to devote ourself, whoever we are to the Lord:
1 Corinthians 7
29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. 32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
To say that this means that those who are as St. Paul are ("7I wish that all men were as I am") are the only ones capable of ordination to the exclusion of others I think misses the point. ALL should have the Lord as their first priority is the point, not that some are more capable than others. Anybody can be called - just do not become slaves of men - your wife, your boss or dare I say any temporal authority?
I would have to dig deeper to dispute your claim.
Why?
The argument is not that facil. The question is how many St. Pauls do we have out there? The expectation that sexual super athletes are best able to lead to the Lord to me denies the existence of a gift of human desire. In perpetuating this denial, the church has made the invitation of ordinaton to nearly nobody. The inevitable and demonstrable result is that the priesthood attracts those who wish to completely deny their submission to temptation and who are transfixed by acheiving abstenance and the validation of ordination, all while containing and concealing an uncontrollable desire. You are right that marriage would not change such an person, who would never be worthy of ordination. But, why should the chuch make itself attractive to such a person?
For one thing, married men burp;a lot. They make other noises too
Gosh, we sure have attracted a lot of nobodies for centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries et in saecula saeculorum. Amen
Real funny...lol
...but doesn't answer the question.
Really none of my business as an Orthodox, but I should point out that we have always had married priests. They work very hard and go to alot of meetings, but frankly, so do I and virtually all the other professional, married people I know. Our parish has about 135 people in it. The priest's pay package (salary and benes) is about $89,000.00. He owns his own house (we sold the rectory a few years ago. Young priests want to build up some equity like everyone else). In some big parishes there are two priests and they too work hard, but after a few years, they have packages worth over $100,000.00. And you should know that the parishes pay everything, insurance, social security, pension etc. From a financial standpoint, it seems to me that RC parishes can afford this, but the days of putting five or ten dollars in the basket on Sundays is over. From a social standpoint, I think you'd find that married priests bring a knowledge to their ministry which is very useful.
Dear Kolokotronis,
As a Catholic, I welcome your contribution to the discussion. You always have worthy and insightful comments for any thread to which you contribute.
Even so, I think there are good reasons to retain the rule of celibacy for the Latin Rite, as much as I think it best to retain the option for marriage in the Eastern Rites, and should reunion be brought about by the Holy Spirit prior to the Second Coming, in the churches currently in communion with Constantinople.
sitetest
There are several 3-priest parishes (including mine) within 20 minutes of my house.
If you would read the article,you would note it was written by a woman who's husband was a Protestant pastor. The family came to the Catholic Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.